Miscellaneous desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 7

Gasoline prices

Is there a standard or preferred method for writing gasoline prices in the United States, specifically because of the fractional cents that are used? (I never understood that, and our article on gasoline and diesel usage and pricing does not explain it.) Anyway, I know that $3.269 is technically correct, but to many people, three digits after a decimal point in money confuses them. I have also seen it written as $3.26.9, $3.26⁹ and $3.269⁄10. Are these incorrect? Or is it just a matter of style and taste? (And out of curiosity, do other countries use fractional secondary currency units in a similar manner?) → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, fuel prices are, for example, 1.82 (UK pounds!) per litre(!) - I have never seen a smaller fraction of price specified. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what part of the UK Demiurge1000 lives in, but here in England (between us, Alan & I probably cover most of it) I've never seen tenths of a penny not advertised in recent years (though I can remember when petrol was pre-decimal 3/6 per gallon [17½ pence]) Dbfirs 08:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... the usual British notation would be "181.9p per litre" (p = pence).[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I have no idea why they do that - it's really annoying. Actually, current UK fuel prices are around 132p for unleaded petrol (gasoline) and 137p for diesel fuel.[6]. GBP 1.32 per litre equals GBP 5.00 per US gallon (or USD 7.77) by my calculation. Alansplodge (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My nearest Asda's petrol station (Hampshire, England) has for some time been advertising prices along the lines of 132.7p/litre – works out to about 8p or 0.6 mile's worth saved on a full tank, so I don't think it's worth going out of your way to fill up there, but it may enable them to top any survey of cheapest local prices. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like writing 326.9¢ in the U.S. Very strange. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 02:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly how we do it in Canada. Mingmingla (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google image [gasoline price signs] and you will see the most common usages in America. One is a little 9 superscript, the other is a little 9 over a little 10. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mill is the smallest unit of US currency. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what Mingmingla says above, I've never seen a gas price sign in Canada written with a ¢ sign. My local station writes 124.9, which is to be read as $1.249 per litre. In older stations, that never expected the price to go into 5 spaces, it sometimes reads "24.9" from which you are expected to assume that the $1 at the front is missing. (Actually, I shouldn't say I have never seen a ¢ sign, because I can remember when gas was less than a dollar a gallon -and also less than a dollar a litre- at the pumps.) Bielle (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be fair Mingmingla isn't wrong - The ¢ isn't explicitly written on the sign but it's implied. 124.9 IS 124.9 cent, but we just automatically convert (both in our heads and at the actual pump) that into $1.249 per litre. Example image in this article. Royor (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I meant. There is no ¢, but it is implied. I won't speak to how it's "meant" to be read, though, since it is measured in cents, not dollars. When they say 137.9 (as it was this morning on my way to work), they say it in cents. Mingmingla (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are good as signs, but how is it done in print? → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a photo with the standard station format, but the article does it in dollars: Gas Prices — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingmingla (talk • contribs) 17:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just gas/diesel but all fuel prices. I have a bunch of fuel prices that include AVGAS and Jet A and they are the same. Heating fuel is even more exact as it's $1.1595 a L and not all of them end in a 9. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that by convention, any seller can price his product however he wants providing that it is sold in the local approved units (gallons/litres/kilograms/etc.). A point about petrochemical fuel is that it is bought in bulk by weight (or units of mass for the pedantic). The reason being: It has a high coefficient of thermal expansion. Therefore, if one is buying a 10,000 gallon consignment, one could be many gallons down according to the temperature. So... When John Doe converts his fuel by weight price, into fuel by volume-pump-price it is almost impossible to achieve a perfect fraction. Added to that is that, the tax man wants to see records of exactly what has been sold vis. that has be lost through evaporation (some gas stations now have equipment to recover this evaporate). Therefore, I say blame the tax man for these fractions. --Aspro (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems far-fetched to me. If the fractions were caused by tax, the thousandths digit would vary, not be constantly 9. It seems to me much more likely that this is a parallel with goods being priced at £n.99: it looks slightly cheaper than it is. Marnanel (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: The 9 results from rounding up the last significant figure To the point that it does not effect the second to last significant figure. The £n.99 is not rounding down. If you look at the wholesale price plus retailers profit margin the actual goods would often be priced at several pence less than £n.99. It is a lure to get customers into the shop who will then go onto buy other items that are a few pence more than can be bought in the retail outlet next-door. Take a little note book around and check the prices. Is £n.99 really cheaper than £n.42 ? Those half pounds quickly add up. Hope your wife does the shopping in your house :¬)--Aspro (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lost me there. Where does £n.42 enter into it? Alansplodge (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, lots of things offered at 99c in the 99c Store are available for less than half that elsewhere. Although the 99c Store on 221st between Broadway and Vermilyea offers canned corned beef at 99c which I have seen regularly go for $4.98 elsewhere. Great deals on sardines and other canned meats as well. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

corbett natoinal park

i want preservatoin methods of jim corbett natoinal park — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragyamohan (talk • contribs) 07:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jim Corbett National Park has its own website which has a section about the management and conservation work which you can see here. Richard Avery (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Universities whose entrance exams may only be taken once

So the entrance exam of the University of the Philippines can apparently only be taken once, which means if you fail, you will not be allowed to take it again. To my knowledge, it is the only university in the Philippines or possibly even Asia to have such a policy – the entrance exams of the University of Santo Tomas, Ateneo de Manila University, De La Salle University etc. can be taken multiple times if you fail. Even Tokyo University's notoriously difficult entrance exam can at least be re-taken multiple times (this can be seen in the manga Love Hina). Aside from UP, which other universities around the world have such a policy? And if so, what are the possible reasons as to why they have such a policy? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy league colleges almost work this way: either you enter freshly out of high-school or you do not enter at all in their bachelor programs. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/transfer/index.html http://admissions.yale.edu/eli-whitney Nricardo (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's really like that: note that I said almost and the articles that you linked to confirm what I said: Harvard: "The Committee admits a small number of transfer students who present a clearly defined academic need for transfer." Yale: "Admission to the EWSP is highly competitive, and there are only 20 to 30 Whitney students among the 5,200 Yale undergraduates." Most people entering the bachelor program enter directly from high school. You just get one chance and not through an exam. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be helpful to establish which universities actually have entrance exams since many do not relying generally on secondary school qualifications or similar. Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debate

Besides God's existence, is there any other topic that has arguments thats as big? sorry for wrong grammar. 203.112.82.129 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind: It is the question that asks is there intelligent life to be found on Earth.--Aspro (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do women want? Is there life after marriage? Is the Pope a Catholic? Why is there only one Monopoly Commission? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly Commission? What rock have you been hiding under these last n years (for n put in what ever number you feel you can admit to). That went long ago. The answer to the first question is obvious if one has ever come into a lot of money due to an inheritance and then noticed the sudden (and suffocatingly uncomfortable) interest taken in oneself (joking of course - honestly). Discovering the answer to the second question can be mitigated by insisting on a v-e-r-y l-o-n-g engagement. It is a win-win situation -as it works both ways. After all, the longer you put it off, the richer you'll be by the time you marry her. --Aspro (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Is abortion acceptable? Are using contraceptives abortion? Is divorce acceptable? Do aliens exist? Is communism good or bad? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded on communism, as it's very much a debate of ideology.--WaltCip (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Communism is simply the exploitation of man by man; whilst Capitalism is the exact opposite.' No debate no argument!--Aspro (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the Ultimate Question. - Ka renjc 00:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above are all rather easy questions. The two that puzzle me are, Why is gravitic mass the same as inertial mass? and, What is the underlying nature of qualia? μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good. How about the correct characterization of the greatest good for the greatest number and the extent to which such a pseudo-utopia can be achieved through communication? 71.212.249.178 (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forty-two, of course! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Mac vs. PC [/late to the party] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.42.0 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Big One: Is there life after death? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will the Chicago Cubs ever be in a World Series again? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]